Consequentialism and non-consequentialism are both action based ethical frameworks that people can use to make ethical judgments. Consequentialism is based on examining the consequences of one’s actions as opposed to non-consequentialism which is focused on whether the act is right or wrong regardless of the outcome (Burgh, Field & Freakley, 2006). The three sub-categories of consequentialism are altruism, utilitarianism and egoism. Altruism is when the actions of a person promote the best consequences
conundrums, one can not forget that validity is shared among theories. Holes may seem larger in certain standards and ideals, but these holes are never refutable and should be used to create a larger discourse between philosophical theories. Consequentialism and all it’s sub-groups (direct, universal, hedonism, aggregative, evaluative, maximizing, etc.) are based around two dominant principles: For an act to be in the right or wrong one must look solely to the results of the act, and subsequently
Define consequentialism, and explain why act utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. How does consequentialism differ from rival approaches to ethics? Do you find consequentialism to be a plausible way of thinking about right and wrong? Explain your answer. Consequentialism is the view that, according to FoE, the morality of actions, policies, motives, or rules depends on their producing the best actual or expected results. In other words, do as much good as you can. Act utilitarianism
Consequentialism is an ethical theory that evaluates the consequences of a person’s action to determine if their actions are right or wrong (Slote 34). According to the theory, a morally right act is one that has more good outcomes than bad ones. In this ethical theory, the end justifies the means; hence, it argues that people should first determine the good and bad consequences of actions before they do them. After determining the total outcomes, it is important to investigate whether the total
In “Consequentialism and Integrity,” Bernard Williams criticizes consequentialism on the ground that it is inherently unreasonable due to its insistence on negative responsibility, and as a result, denies the agent integrity. Peter Railton’s “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality” is a response to Williams and a defense of consequentialism. In the following essay, I will explain Williams’s attack on consequentialism, and Railton’s argument that consequentialism need not deny
Introduction This essay will provide a theoretical understanding of the four ethical frameworks: Consequentialism, Non- Consequentialism, Virtue Ethics and Care Ethics. When applied to a situation these frameworks help teachers to resolve and justify their decision making. The objective is to apply the four frameworks to the scenario Helping Molly, to establish the most ethical course of action. Finally, a recommended course of action will be justification. The overarching ethical issue present
the guard killed. In this situation, the actions based on Utilitarianism should be performed to ensure the greatest good for the maximum amount of people. Consequentialism has moral theories that target a goal or state that aids in evaluating moral actions and the progression of that aimed state. The most popular rendition of consequentialisms is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism characterizes morals by the maximized results for all participants distressed by actions or
we do about it?” and “should we even do something about it?”. In this essay, I will be arguing the moral implications of consequentialism and why Onora O’Neill’s non-consequential view on the subject is more plausible than Peter Singer’s consequential view. I will explain what differentiates Singer and O’Neill’s views and where both their views come together. Consequentialism refers to the idea that what is morally good or bad is all based on the consequences of one’s actions. It is derived from
lives. The two theories I will be using in my argument are Consequentialism and Utilitarianism, as both of these support the theory that morals affect our decision making. To begin with consequentialism is the theory that there is a rightness and wrongness of actions which is determined by a moral code, for example it is a set of rules which would have the best outcome for the one making the decision. There are two theories of consequentialism
an event or activity (Kaurt, “Aristotle on Pleasure”). By Mill changing Bentham’s definition of utilitarianism he allowed the measurement of what is considered to be a good decision to have a more personal affect. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. It is a moral theory that allows a person to look at all of the possible outcomes and choose the outcome that they believe will bring about the most happiness to the most amount of people. This means that the moral theory is not black and white
Consequentialism sets out to prove that one’s actions are morally right just because they produce the greatest amount of possibly goodness in the world. Consequentialism has two forms; one being act-utilitarianism, and the second one being rule-utilitarianism. In this paper I will explain the difference between the two forms, and will also apply these two forms to the same given scenario, and describe how the act-utilitarian will select the male patient, while the rule-utilitarian will select the
Consequentialism, Deontology, and Inevitable Trade-offs ABSTRACT: Recently, unrestrained consequentialism has been defended against the charge that it leads to unacceptable trade-offs by showing a trade-off accepted by many of us is not justified by any of the usual nonconsequenlist arguments. The particular trade-off involves raising the speed limit on the Interstate Highway System. As a society, we seemingly accept a trade-off of lives for convenience. This defense of consequentialism may be
Kai Nielsen’s Support of Consequentialism and Rejection of Deontology Kai Nielsen defended consequentialism and showed how it can still agree with commonsense, deontological convictions in his article “Traditional Morality and Utilitarianism.” His article focused on closing the gulf between consequentialism and deontology by showing how closely they can agree, and he further evaluated the systems and found that consequentialism as he sees it should be practiced is morally superior to traditional
Answer (A) According to the book Shafer Landau an act utilitarianism is “the version of act consequentialism that says that only well-being is intrinsically valuable, and so says that an act is morally right just because it maximizes overall well-being” (Shafer Landau, G1). In the other words, it means that the act that produces the maximum of the happiness at that time than any other act. Another similar example of this act for the better understanding is, if I have a friend and being with her
applied to certain situations. In the text, Moral Theory: An Introduction, the case of Jim is a hypothetical situation that questions the morality of one’s actions that can be rationalized by two theories, classical act utilitarianism and rule consequentialism. In this case, the captain of a military group captured twenty Indians who are rebelling against the government. To teach them a lesson he is going to execute all twenty individuals. Jim accidently finds himself in the presence of the captain
compromise the subject grade due to missing a deadline when submitting his work, on the other hand it is his first time and it is contrasting to his usual behaviour. There are three types of ethics that can be used to argue the case study, firstly consequentialism, this being that when an individual is faced with different choices they should determine the act that promotes better outcomes (Eggleston, 2005). Secondly deontology discusses the moral rightness and this claims that people have certain duties
Consequentialist Theories Consequentialism is a theory of regulating morals. It holds that a demonstration is just good or moral on the off chance that it brings about a decent conclusion. For example, “What do are actions tell us about what we want. “This is instead of the hypothesis or examination of good obligation, which demonstrates huge quality is in light of obligation; uprightness ethics, which holds that discriminating quality is in setting of a respectable character. Consequentialism is an elusive
moral theory for the sake of the greater good being the only intrinsically valuable thing because it supplies us with the most opportunities to improve welfare. Classical utilitarianism belongs to the family of moral theories called consequentialism. Consequentialism summarizes actions as being morally obligatory because it yields the best results. Classical (act) utilitarian’s believe that the total well-being is the only
Part I: James Stacey Taylor's article, "In Praise of Big Brother: Why We Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Government Surveillance" begins reviewing the concept of "Big Brother" as it was originally presented in George Orwell's 1984. The Big Brother started off as a fictional character in 1984-- a dictator of Oceania within a totalitarian state. Set within a society in which everyone is under complete surveillance by the authorities, mainly by telescreens, the people are constantly reminded
for the Sadhu (Donaldson 280). There are three general approaches in examining a moral issue and making a decision, those being consequentialism, deontology and virtue ethics. The essay does not clearly indicate which method was used to assess the situation. In my opinion, the best method would be Kantian deontology. Let us discuss consequentialism first. Consequentialism focuses on consequences as the most important factor in the decision making process (Donaldson 3). For consequentialists the motives